I think a lot of people are in agreement with the processing speed on the Macs... I just had an interview yesterday with a new magazine and they want to install a Windows system becuase macs are too expensive out here--and not worth the investment to some (oddly enough, as I've been using OSX now, I thought they could do with a Mac system but to some people Mac is still a four letter word)...
This debate goes on and on over the same issues:
1. G4 is too slow
2. Port OS X onto x86
3. Wait for new 64 bit chips
here's my take on all three...
1. The G4 IS too slow, and I don't doubt that what you say is true--I've suspected for a while that the G4 1.25 is overclocked... A long time ago, just as Apple was about to start the clones, I worked for a company that had a "sister" company in Texas that overclocked the 604e daughterboards and sold them back to the customers as "new" processors!!! They would put in a $5 clock, test it out, mark over the original processor with a sharpie, and sell it back to the customer for $500 or more. (I was not part of this fiasco)... the same company got a contract to buy motherboards from Motorola and license the Mac OS, which prompted an investigation after an article in MacWorld cited the company was in no way prepared to manufacture mac clones. (They weren't)... the motorola employee that issued the contract was fired and this whole was one of the many reasons Apple pulled the plug on the licensing thing.
With all that said (sorry I digress) I can totally see the 1.25 as simply an overclocked chip and one of the reasons I almost switched to PC when I was upgrading my life to OSX.
2. Porting OSX onto x86... this is a complicated subject and as I gather more intelligence from forum to forum, developer to developer and article to article I think it's totally out of the scope of a simple post. Apple's position as a "computer manufacturer" and not a "software company", MMX vs. Altivec, the AIM aliance, Apple's Marketing Strategies & Profit Design... all of these factors play an important role in this and I have yet found the time to compile all the information in one spot... but it's definately gone beyond the "oh that would suck" point, at the very least...
3. Waiting for IBMs to "save" Apple seems to be a popular discussion on these boards, albeit an illogical one, as even if IBM were to get a chip to Apple (they're working on one with Sony right now in Austin, TX) Intel and AMD are working on their versions as well, and Apple will still be left in the dust. Until the next generation CPU comes on board and more manufacturers get into the game (like the auto industry) we're going to be stuck in this rut, Apple or otherwise. I think it's safe to say that unless Apple takes it's own advice and somehow makes the "switch", we'll always be behind in processing speed. As I've mentioned before, with the release of OSX, slow machines are not an option.
